Sandora, Normalina
Unknown Affiliation

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

Analyzing The Efficacy and Outcome of Amniotic Membrane in Burn Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Putri, Nandita Melati; Wardhana, Aditya; Sandora, Normalina; Syarif, Akhmad Noviandi; Farhana, Nadya; Oklia, Sheila
Jurnal Plastik Rekonstruksi Vol. 12 No. 1 (2025): (2025): Jurnal Plastik Rekonstruksi
Publisher : The Lingkar Studi Bedah Plastik Foundation and is affiliated with the Department of Plastic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia.

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.14228/jprjournal.v12i1.384

Abstract

Introduction: Managing burn injuries is a significant clinical challenge in promoting wound healing and minimizing complications. Advances like amniotic membrane as a biological dressing have been introduced to improve wound healing. This study analyzes the efficacy of amniotic membrane in burn care and its impact on wound healing outcomes.Methods: We conducted a systematic review in Pubmed, Cochrane, and ScienceDirect, using “Amnion”, “Burns”, and “Wound healing” as keywords. The inclusion criteria are studies assessing the application of amniotic membrane on burn wounds. The outcome measures were mean healing time, wound healing rate, incidence of wound infection, dressing renewal frequency, pain score, and LOS.Results: We identified eleven trials (n=971) ranging from the year 1989 to 2023, containing eight RCTs, and three NRCTs. The pooled RR showed statistically significant differences between amniotic membrane group and control group in mean healing time (RR -4.52 [95% CI; -6.93, -2.11]; p=0.0002), wound healing rate (RR 1.60 [95% CI; 1.09, 2.33]; p=0.02), incidence of wound infection (RR 0.48 [95% CI; 0.30, 0.77]; p=0.002), and dressing renewal frequency (RR -1.64 [95% CI; -2.48, -0.79]; p=0.0002).Conclusion: This meta-analysis indicates that amniotic membrane is advantageous as a biological dressing for burn patients.
Current Updates of Biomaterials for Skin Replacement: A Systematic Review Sandora, Normalina; Amalina Fitria, Nur; Wardhana, Aditya; Melati Putri , Nandita; Noviandi Syarif , Akhmad; Rahmah Kusuma, Tyas; Karimah, Benati
Jurnal Plastik Rekonstruksi Vol. 12 No. 2 (2025): Jurnal Plastik Rekonstruksi
Publisher : The Lingkar Studi Bedah Plastik Foundation and is affiliated with the Department of Plastic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia.

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.14228/jprjournal.v12i2.45

Abstract

Background: The human skin envelops the entire body surface and is highly susceptible to damage. Partial- and full-thickness skin loss often necessitates the use of skin substitutes. Autologous grafting remains the gold standard for skin replacement. Furthermore, the application is usually constrained by the limited availability of donor skin, the technical challenges of surgery, and the added difficulties encountered in severe cases. In this systematic review, we summarise the strengths and limitations of biological and synthetic biomaterials as skin substitutes, with evidence drawn from clinical practice, human trials, and preclinical animal studies. This systematic review evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of biological and synthetic biomaterials used as skin substitutes, drawing evidence from clinical practice, human studies, and animal studies.”Method: We performed a comprehensive literature review using the search engines OVID, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and PubMed databases. Search terms or keywords included "artificial skin," "biomaterials," "skin substitute," "full-thickness burn," "synthetic materials," "burn graft materials," and "wound care." From an initial pool of 97 articles, 65 met the inclusion criteria, which required peer-reviewed studies published in English after 2000, focusing on biomaterials for skin substitutes evaluated in clinical, human, or animal studies.Results:  Skin substitutes commercially available in the market were predominantly incorporated with human fibroblasts and keratinocytes within a three-dimensional matrix, with a preference for biological materials due to their biocompatibility. Nevertheless, biological substitutes face challenges such as limited availability, extended production time, high costs, and lack of immediate usability. In contrast, synthetic substitutes are more accessible and scalable but often do not integrate well with the recipient's tissue, which limits their clinical efficacy.Conclusion: While both biological and synthetic artificial skin substitutes are available on the market, none of the current options fully meet the ideal criteria for skin replacement, such as affordability, availability, seamless integration with the surrounding tissue, and the ability to minimise scarring. More research is needed to address these limitations and advance the development of next-generation biomaterials that can effectively replace skin.